I don't think I asked the question very well. I was thinking
something like:
while (retryLogicSaysKeepGoing)
try
invocation.Proceed()
catch
invocation.Rollback()
which would move the interceptor index back one.
On Mar 15, 11:23 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I don't think really that would require API change. Or perhaps I'm not
> on the same page as you.
>
> But from my understanding what you want is to be able to call Proceed()
> multiple times on an interceptor and not get an exception but make it legal.
>
> We have a few places in the stack that are modelled after DP
> Interceptors and allow behavior like this.
>
> IResolveExtension/IReleaseExtension and ExtendedHandler in Windsor are
> one example of that.
>
> Also we have some code in WCF Facility although I'm not sure what of
> that is left, and if Craig didn't do some changes in that area yet.
>
> I also think you wouldn't have to change the emitted code and the code
> change would be limited to AbstractInterceptor class...
>
> Krzysztof
>
> On 16/03/2011 12:34 PM, Eric Hauser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mauricio - Yes, I saw that. I agree that it is a hack =)
>
> > Krzysztof - Happy to do the work if you have a recommendation on what
> > it might look like from an API standpoint. Not quite sure of an
> > elegant way to do it within the existing chain.
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:25 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> A few people asked for this over last few years. I'm accepting patches
> >> for this.
>
> >> Krzysztof
>
> >> On 16/03/2011 7:15 AM, Mauricio Scheffer wrote:
>
> >>> It's quite hackish, but have you seen
> >>>http://www.primordialcode.com/blog/post/castle-dynamicproxy-dirty-tri...
> >>> ?
> >>> --
> >>> Mauricio
> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Eric Hauser<[email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>> Is there any way to create retry interception logic with
> >>> DynamicProxy? It doesn't seem that you are allowed to call Proceed
> >>> on
> >>> an interceptor more than once because it is a chain. Thanks.
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups "Castle Project Users" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> <mailto:castle-project-users%[email protected]>.
> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups "Castle Project Users" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>> [email protected].
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> [email protected].
> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
